Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th May 2009 08:46 UTC
Permalink for comment 362920
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-09-27
That line of thought doesn't seem to be very popular over here, or in most places nowadays for that matter. For what it's worth, I agree. So do Austrian economists like Murray Rothbard:
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp
In a nutshell, there's no consistent way to define "monopolistic" behavior as opposed to legitimate market behavior, and all antitrust legislation is harmful interventionism.
BTW, I do think Microsoft and Intel are monopolists, not because they dominate the market, but because their business model is largely based on intellectual monopolies granted by the State through "intellectual property" laws, especially patents, the antithesis of free competition. OTOH, I have no issues with, say, McDonald's, as long as they don't try to get patents on fast food to shun competition (I wouldn't be too surprised to learn they have).